George Eliot; A Critical Study of Her Life, Writings & Philosophy by George Willis Cooke

Its easy to link to paragraphs in the Full Text ArchiveIf this page contains some material that you want to link to but you don't want your visitors to have to scroll down the whole page just hover your mouse over the relevent paragraph and click the bookmark icon that appears to the left of it. The address of that paragraph will appear in the address bar of your browser. For further details about how you can link to the Full Text Archive please refer to our linking page.

There is wanting in George Eliot's books that freshness of spirit, thatfaith in the future, and that peaceful poise of soul which is to be foundin the writings of Tennyson, Ruskin and Mrs. Browning. Even with all hisconstitutional cynicism and despair, the teachings of Carlyle are much morehopeful than hers. An air of fatigue and world-weariness is about all herwork, even when it is most stimulating with its altruism. Though in theorynot a pessimist, yet a sense of pain and sorrow grows out of the touch ofeach of her books. In this she missed one of the highest uses ofliterature, to quicken new hopes and to awaken nobler purposes. There is atone of joy and exultation in the power life confers, an instinctive senseof might to conquer the world, in the best writing. To make men think, tomove men to action, to confer finer feelings and motives, is the power ofthe true poet. When he does not accomplish this he has written to a lesserpurpose. Literature aims either to please or to quicken the mind. It cannotplease when it leaves the heart depressed and burdened with the failuresand sadness of the world. If it is to please, it must make use of thatgoodness and joy which are in excess of evil and misery. It cannot quickenwhen it unnerves the mind and brings despair of moral purpose. If it is toinspire it must show that something great is to be done, and awaken thecourage to do it.

That life has its sad and painful elements is a terrible fact, and thenovelist who would paint life as it is must recognize them. It is quite astrue that the good and the hopeful are more than the sad and painful, thatright is more powerful in human life than wrong. The novelist who wouldpaint life with an exact and even-handed justice, must not make all hisendings sorrowful, for very many in real life are not so. _The Mill on theFloss_ would have been a more powerful and effective book could Maggie havebeen made to conquer. It would have been quite as true to nature to haverepresented her as overcoming her defects, and as being purified throughsuffering. Is all suffering to conquer us, instead of our being able toconquer it, and gaining a more peaceful and a purer life through its aid?If Maggie is George Eliot in her youthful experiences, then the novel isuntrue to fact in that Marian Evans conquered and Maggie failed. The samefault is to be found in _Middlemarch_, that Dorothea, great as she is,deserved a much better fate than that accorded to her. The elements ofwomanly greatness were in her character, and with all the barriers createdby society she would have done better things had her creator been true toher capacities in unfolding her life-history. The effect of both thesegreat novels is one of depression and disappointment. The reader alwaysexpects more as he goes on his way through these scenes, depicted with suchgenius, than is realized at the end. Disappointment is almost inevitable,for the promise is greater than the fulfilment. The like result is producedby those books which have the brightest closing scenes, as in _Adam Bede_and _Daniel Deronda_, where the author's aim was evidently hopeful andconstructive. _Silas Marner_ and _Felix Holt_ are the only exceptions tothis pessimistic tone, and in which justice is done to the better side oflife. In all her later books the ending is painful. In _The Mill on theFloss_, Maggie and Tom are drowned after Maggie had been led to a mostbitter end of her love-affairs. In _Romola_ the heroine is left a widow,after her husband's treachery had brought him to a terrible death, andafter Savonarola had suffered martyrdom. Dorothea marries into a life ofordinary drudgery, and Lydgate fails. Daniel Deronda and Gwendolen areseparated from each other, and Deronda goes to the east in furtherance of awild scheme of Jewish colonization. Fedalma loses her father by thetreachery of her lover, and without hope conducts her tribe to Africa.Jubal dies dishonored, and Armgart loses her voice. Yet it is not merelythat the conclusion does not lead to the expected result, but throughoutthere is a tone of doubt and failure. That George Eliot purposed to givelife this tinge of sadness is not to be accepted as the true explanation ofit. It is known that she did not have such a purpose, that she wassurprised and disappointed that her books should produce such a result onher readers. The explanation is to be found in another direction.

She was an agnostic; life had no wide horizon for her. The light of agenuinely ideal and spiritual conception of life was not hers. The worldwas bounded to her vision, rounded into the little capacity possessed byman. Where others would have cast a glow of hope and sunset brilliance,promise of a brighter day yet to dawn over the closing scenes of hernovels, she could see nothing beyond but the feeble effect of an earthlytransmitted good. In this regard her books afford a most interestingcontrast to those of the two other great women who have adorned Englishliterature with their genius. The lot of Mrs. Browning and Charlotte Brontewas much sadder and more depressing than that of George Eliot; more ofdarkness and pain affected their lives. A subtle tone of sadness runsthrough their books, but it is not burdensome and depressing as is the caseof George Eliot. There is hope with it, and a buoyant faith in the good,which lies above and beyond all pain and sorrow. With neither of them wasthis faith conventional, a mere reflection of the religion taught them inchildhood. It was a thoughtful result of a large experience, and of hardcontact with many of the severest facts of human experience. That widehorizon of spiritual reality which shone for them on every hand, lights alltheir work with a brilliance which almost puts out of sight the pain andsorrow of the world. The reader of their books is made to believe that lifeis an endless good; he is cheered and made stronger for what life offershim.

Agnosticism may have its great and heroic incentives, it may impel men to anobler activity, but its literary effect, as a motive towards a moreinspiring life, has not been satisfactory in the hands of George Eliot.Shakspere is not a teacher of philosophy or ethics, he has no doctrines topreach, no theories to advocate. What he believed, it would be difficult toascertain from his writings; yet he is an effective teacher of morals, hestimulates into activity all that is best in man, life widens and deepensunder the touch of his genius. So is it with Milton, Schiller, Moliere,Calderon, Montaigne and Wordsworth. So is it with George Eliot in all thatconcerns our duties, and even with our human sympathies. In the onedirection of trust she is wanting, and her books are devoid of it.Shakspere makes us realize that God rules over the world; George Eliotleaves us with the feeling that we know nothing, and can hope for butlittle. That her theories really cast a shadow over the world, may be seenin all her dealings with love. Love is with her a human passion, deep,pure, blessed. It crowns some of her characters with joy and peace andstrength; it is never impure and base in her pages. Yet it is human, it isa social force, it is to be made altruistic. It never gains that highpoetic influence and charm which glorifies it in the writings of Mrs.Browning, Browning and Tennyson. Browning conceives of it as an eternalpassion, as one with all that is divinest in man, as a medium of hisspiritual development. In his pages it glows with moral promise, itinspires and regenerates. The poet should deal with love, not as a thingbase and susceptible of abuse, but as an influence capable of the mostbeneficent results in the uplifting of man's nature. If it degrades, italso sweetens; and only that is love which makes life richer and moreworthy. The true artist can afford to deal with that which pleases, notwith that which saddens and disgusts. The real love is the pure love, notthe depraved. The natural is the noble, not the debased life.

George Eliot's originality of method has given rise to a new school infiction. Her imitators, even when at their best, are not her equals, andthey have degraded her methods oftentimes to paltry uses. They have triedto take photographs of life, supposing that art has for its aim to copynature. They have failed to see, what she did see, though not so clearly ascould have been desired, that art must do much more than imitate some sceneor fact out of nature. It must give beauty, meaning and expression to whatit copies. And it must do more than imitate: it must go beyond meredescription, and introduce unity, purpose and thought into its work. Trueart has a soul as well as a body, says something to the mind as well as tothe eye, appeals to the soul as well as to sense. Had George Eliot donenothing more than to describe common English life there would have beensmall excuse for her work. She did more, touched that life with genius,made it blossom into beauty, and gave to it deep moral meanings. Thedefects of her method are to be seen in the fact that her imitators cannotget above life's surface, and deal mainly with shallow or degraded natures.Her methods do not inspire great work, while her own genius redeemed thefalse ways into which she was led by her philosophic theories.

Science can dissect the human body, but it can do little towards anexplanation of the subtler meanings of life and mind. Its methods areanalytical; it has reached no truly synthetic results in the regions whereknowledge is most to be desired. Its effects on literature are destructive.Science destroys poetry, dries up the poetic sense, closes the doors ofimagination. The attempt to make science co-operate with poetry is initself the promise of failure. The limitations of George Eliot's work arethe limitations of poetry subdued by science. Could she have rid herself ofthat burden, been impelled by a faith and an ideal purpose commensuratewith her genius, the result would have been much greater. This limitationsuggests the fact that literature is synthetic and constructive in itspurpose and spirit. It is this fact which has made the classic literaturesso powerful in their effect on modern Europe. They have given unity,spiritual purpose and ideal aims to the whole modern world. The freshnessas of an eternal spring was in the literature of Greece, the naturalness ofa healthy manhood. That literature is organic, it is one with life, it isrefreshing as nature itself. That literature lives and flames with powerbecause it is synthetic, buoyant, touched with an eternal spiritual beauty,great with promise of a growing earth. Its poets do not dissect, but build;they do not analyze, but create. And this is the literary need of thepresent time. There is need of more poetry, a more poetic interpretation oflife, a richer imagination and a finer sense of beauty. The common iseverywhere, but it is not necessarily great or beautiful or noble. It mayhave its elements of pathos and tragedy, its touches of beauty and itsmotives of heroism. It has in it also the promise of better things to be.That is the true poetry, the true fiction, which brings out this promise sothat we know it, so that it moves us to better deeds and enchants us withmusic of purer living. The world is bad enough without dragging to thelight all its evils and discords; let us rather know what promise itcontains of the better. In one word, the real oppresses and enthralls; theideal liberates, and brings us to ourselves.

Genius redeems every fault. It must be taken for what it is, must not becriticised, is to be used to the highest ends. Only when genius unitesitself to false methods and checks itself by false theories, has the critica right to complain. Genius, obedient to its own laws, accepts every factlife presents, and lifts each one to be an instrument for the enlargementof man's life. When it deliberately strikes out all that is not human,however, from man's experience, denies the realty of that impression andthat conviction which comes from other than material sources, it cripplesand denies itself.

XX.

THE LIMITATIONS OF HER THOUGHT.

It must be remembered that George Eliot does not use the novel merely forthe purpose of inculcating certain doctrines, and that her genius forartistic creation is of a very high order. In dealing with her as a thinkerand as a moral and religious teacher, she is to be regarded, first of all,as a poet and an artist. Her ethics are subordinate to her art; herreligion is subsidiary to her genius. That she always deliberately setabout the task of introducing her positivism into the substance of hernovels is not to be supposed. This would be to imply a forgetfulness on herpart of her own methods, and a prostration of art to purposes she wouldhave scorned to adopt. This is evidently true, however, that certainfeatures of the positive and the evolution philosophy had so thoroughlyapproved themselves to her mind as to cause them to be accepted as acompletely satisfactory explanation of the world, so far as any explanationis possible. So heartily were they received, so fully did they becomeincorporated with the substance of her thinking, that she viewed all humanexperiences in their light. They had ceased to be theory and speculationwith her. When she thought about the world, when she observed the acts ofmen, the positivist explanation was at once applied, and instinctively.

That she did teach positivism is unfortunately true, so far as her literarytouch and expression is concerned. That philosophy affects all her bookswith its subtly insinuating flavor, and it gives meaning and bias to mostof them. They thus gain in definiteness of purpose, in moral vigor, inminutely faithful study of some phases of human experience, and in amassive impression of thoughtfulness which her work creates. At the sametime, they undoubtedly lose in value as studies of life; in free range ofexpression for her genius, her poetry and her art; and in that spiritualvision which looks forward with keen gazing eyes of hope and confidentinquiry.

Her teaching, like most teaching, is a mingled good and evil. In more thanone direction her ethical and religious influence was most wholesome andeffective. She brought into clear light a few great facts, and made themthe more conspicuous by the strong emphasis she gave them. This is, in themain, the method of all teaching and of all progress. Development seldomproceeds in a direct line, but rather, so far as man is concerned, byforcible emphasis laid on some great fact which has been previouslyneglected. The idealism of a previous age had shown the value of certainfacts and tendencies in human nature, but it had exaggerated some facultiesand capacities of man, as well as neglected others. In consequence, our owntime swings to the other extreme, and cannot have too much of evolution andpositivism.

Idealism is in human nature, and will give itself expression. Positivism isalso a result of our experience and of our study of the universe, bothmaterial and mental; it is a result of the desire for definite knowledge.As a re-action against the excesses of idealism it is a powerful leaven,and it brings into necessary prominence those facts which are neglected bythe opposite philosophy. It takes account of facts, and scorns mysticism;and it thus appeals to a deep-seated bias of the time.

George Eliot's books have an interest as an attempt at an interpretationof life from its more practical and realistic side, and not less as are-action against the influences of very nearly all the great literaryminds of the earlier half of the century in England. Under the lead ofColeridge and Wordsworth, and influenced by German thought and literature,a remarkable movement was then developed in English literature. The outcomeof that movement has been surpassed only by that of the age of Shakspere.Freshness of thought, love of nature, profound humanitarian convictions,and spontaneity wedded to great largeness of ideas, characterize thisperiod and its noble work. Such an age is almost invariably followed by anage of re-action, criticism, realism and analysis. An instinctive demandfor a portrayal of the more positive side of life, and the influence ofscience, have developed a new literary school. For doctrine it teachesagnosticism, and in method it cares mainly for art and beauty of form.Towards the development of the new school George Eliot has been a leadinginfluence, though her sympathies have not gone with all its tendencies andresults.

If Wordsworth exaggerated the importance of the intuitive and personal,George Eliot equally exaggerated the value of the historic and hereditary.It was desirable, however, that the relations of life to the past should bebrought out more distinctly by a literary development of their relations tothe present, and that the influence of social heredity should be seen asaffecting life on all sides. Tradition is a large and persistent element inthe better life of the race, while the past certainly has a powerfulinfluence over the present. This fact was neglected by Wordsworth, andespecially is it neglected by the intuitive philosophies. They ignore thelessons of the past, and assume that a new and perfect world is to beevolved from the depths of consciousness. That to think a better world isto create a better world, they seem to take for granted, while the fact isthat the truer life is the result of a painful and long-continued struggleagainst adverse conditions. What has been, persists in remaining, and thepast, with all its narrowness and prejudices, continues to influence menmore powerfully than does clear thought or regard for the truth. Emotionand sentiment cling about what has become sacred with age. Channels forthought and activity having once been made, it is very difficult to abandonthem for untried paths approved even by reason.

The historic view is one of much importance, and is likely to be overlookedby the poets and novelists. It is also ignored by the radicals in moralsand religion. Much which George Eliot says on this subject is of greatvalue, and may be heeded with the utmost profit. Her words of wisdom,however, lose much of their value because they utterly ignore thosespontaneous and supernatural elements of man's higher life which lift itquite out of the region of dependence on history.

There is something to be said in behalf of George Eliot's attitude towardsreligion, which caused her to hold it in reverence, even when rejecting theobjective validity of its dogmas. Yet much more is to be said for thatother attitude, which is faithful to the law of reason, and believes thatreason is competent to say some truer and larger word on a subject of suchvital importance and such constant interest to man. That both reason andtradition are to be listened to reverently is true, but George Eliot sozealously espoused the cause of tradition as to give it an undueprominence. Her lesson was needed, however, and we may be all the betterable to profit by it because she was so much an enthusiast in proclaimingits value. The even poise of perfect truth is no more to be had from herpages than from those of others.

The emphasis she laid on feeling and sentiment was a needed one, as acounterpoise to the exaggerations of rationalism. Man does live in hisfeelings more than in his reason. He is a being of sentiment, a creature ofimpulse, his social life is one of the affections. In all the ranges of hismoral, religious and social life he is guided mainly by his emotions andsentiments. It cannot be said, however, as George Eliot would have us say,that these are human born and have no higher meaning. They are theoutgrowth of spiritual reality, as well as of human experience; they repeatthe foregleams and foresights of a

"far-off divine event, To which the whole creation moves."

Life is enriched and flooded with light by the emotions, and feeling, trueand tender and pure, is as much the symbol of humanity as reason itself. Itwas therefore well that some one should attempt to justify the emotionallife against the aspersions of those who have done it grave injustice. Itis true that man is not a being who wholly arrives at his method of lifethrough reason, but feeling lends quite as important aid. He does not onlythink, but he has emotions as well; he not only weighs evidence, but heacts by impulse. He is continually led by the emotions, sentiments andimpulses created for him by the life of ages past. Without emotion therecould be no art, no poetry and no music. Without emotion there would be noreligion and no spiritual life. Sentiment sweetens, beautifies and endearsall that is human and natural.

Emotion and the affections, however, seem to be shorn of their highestbeauty and glory when they are restricted to a merely earthly origin andcompass of power. It is altogether impossible to believe that their ownimpulse to look beyond the human is a delusion, and that they really havenothing to report that is valid from beyond the little round which mantreads. To believe in the human beauty and glory of the feelings, and torejoice in their power to unite us to our kind, need imply no forgetfulnessof their demand for a wider expression and a higher communion.

Her theory of the origin of feeling is not to be accepted. It meanssomething more than an inheritance of ancestral experience. It is theresult rather than the cause of reason, for reason has an influence she didnot acknowledge, and an original capacity which she never saw. Her view offeeling was mainly theoretical, for she was led in her attitude towards thefacts of life, not by sentiment, but by reason. Hers was a thoughtfulrather than an impulsive mind, and given to logic more than to emotion.

Her enthusiasm for altruism, her zeal for humanity, lends a delightfulfeature to her books. It gives a glow and a consecration to her work, andmakes her as great a prophet as positivism is capable of creating. And itis no idle power she awakens in her positivist faith in man. She shamesthose who claim a broader and better faith. Zeal for man is no mean gospel,as she gives life and meaning to it in her books. To live for others, toomany are not likely to do. She made altruism beautiful, she made it aconsecration and a religion. Those who cannot accept her agnosticism andher positivism may learn much from her faith in man and from her enthusiasmfor humanity. No faith is worth much which does not lead to a truer and amore helpful love of man. Any faith is good in so far as it makes us morehumane and sympathetic. In this regard, the radicalism of George Eliot wasa great advance on much of the free-thinking of our century. She desired tobuild, not to destroy. She was no iconoclast, no hater of what other menlove and venerate. Her tendencies were all on the side of progress, goodorder and social growth.

Her conception of the organic social life of the race is one of greatvalue. It led her to believe in the possibility of a social organization inthe future based on science, and better capable of meeting all the wants ofmankind than the more personal and competitive methods have done. Thisbelief in the organic unity of the race is not necessarily positivist inits character, for Hegel entertained it as fully as does Herbert Spencer.The larger social life will come, however, as individuals are moved to leadthe way, and not alone as the result of a general evolutionary process. Onits mental side, her social theory is to be regarded with grave suspicions,for it brings all minds to the same level. No mind of commanding influenceis to be found in her books. No powerful intellect gives greatness to anyof her plots. Her Felix Holt is not a man of original and positive thought.We accept, but do not enthusiastically admire him. Deronda is a noblecharacter, but he in no sense represents the largest things of which asocial leader is capable. He disappoints and is weak, and he has no powerto create the highest kind of leadership. In other words, he is not a greatman. The world's reformers have been of another temper and mettle. He is noMazzini, no Luther. George Eliot's social theories loft no room for suchmen. They were superfluous in her social system. The man not to beexplained by heredity and tradition had no place in her books; and nogenius, no great man, can ever be explained by heredity and traditionalone.

George Eliot evidently desired to destroy individualism as a social force.The individual, according to her teaching, is to renounce himself for thesake of the race. He is to live, not as a personal being, but as a memberof the social organization; to develop his altruistic nature, not toperfect his personal character. The finer flavor of personality is brushedmercilessly away by this method.

Reason needs to be justified in opposition to her excessive praise offeeling. Meanwhile, the capacity of man to live a life higher than that ofhis social state is to be asserted. He is indeed a member of humanity, buthumanity does not absorb him to the cost of his personality. Life is strongin those ages in which the individual is able to assert his ownpersonality, in opposition to what is imperfect and untrue in the life ofhis time. This failure to recognize the worth and capacity of theindividual is a most serious defect in George Eliot's work, and mars it inmany directions. A very competent critic has shown how serious is thelimitation arising in this manner, and permeating her books with a falseconception of life.

"So far as George Eliot's life is concerned," says Mr. Stopford Brooke,"she was eager in her self-development, and as eager in her sympathies.But it was a different matter in the main drift of her work. She loweredthe power of individualism. Nay, she did not believe in its having anyself-caused or God-caused existence. Few have individualized theircharacters more than she did, and of these characters we have many distincttypes. But she individualized them with, I may say, almost the set purposeof showing that their individualism was to be sacrificed to the generalwelfare of the race. The more her characters cling to their individualitythe more they fail in reaching happiness or peace. If they are noblecharacters, they are finally obliged, through their very nobility, tosurrender all their ideals, all their personal hopes, all the individualends they hoped to develop; and they reach peace finally only through uttersurrender of personality in humanity. The characters in her books who donot do this, who cling to their individuality and maintain it, succeed inlife, for the most part, if they are strong; are broken to pieces if theyare weak; but in all cases, save one, are not the noble but the ignoblecharacters. The whole of her books is a suppressed attack on individualism,and an exaltation of self-renunciation as the only force of progress, asthe only ground of morality. I leave aside here, as apart from the moralside of the subject, the view that individual power or weakness of any kindis the consequence of the past, of race, of physical causes. What a man isfound to do is not affected by that, in her view.... No one can deny thatthe morality is a lofty one, and, as far as it asserts self-renunciation,entirely useful; we have with all our hearts to thank George Eliot for thatpart of her work. But when sacrifice of self is made, in its last effort,equivalent to the sacrifice of individuality, the doctrine ofself-renunciation is driven to a vicious extreme. It is not self-sacrificewhich is then demanded, it is suicide ... Fully accepted, it would reducethe whole of the human race to hopelessness. That, indeed, is the lastresult. A sad and fatal hopelessness of life broods over all the noblercharacters. All their early ideals are sacrificed, all their early joysdepart, all the pictures they formed are blotted out. They gain peacethrough renunciation, after long failure; some happiness in yielding to theinevitable, and harmonizing life with it; and some blessedness in doing allthey can for the progress of those who follow them, for the good of thosethat are with them. Their self is conquered, not through ennoblement ofpersonality, but through annihilation of personality. And havingsurrendered their separate personality, they then attain the fitting end,silence forevermore. It is no wonder that no characters are so sad, thatnone steep the reader in such hopelessness of joy, as the noble charactersof the later works of George Eliot. They want the mighty power, theenkindling hopes, the resurrection of life, the joy and rapture whichdeepens towards death and enables man to take up the ideals of youthagain."

If too severe in some directions, this criticism is substantially sound. Itdoes not matter what theory of personality we adopt, in a philosophicalsense, if that theory upholds personal confidence and force of will. If itdoes not do this, the whole result is evil. This lack of faith inpersonality saddened all the work done by George Eliot. In theory abeliever in an ever-brightening future, and no pessimist, yet the outcomeof her work is dark with despondency and grief.

Life is sad, hard and ascetic in her treatment of it. An ascetic tone runsthrough all her work, the result of her theories of renunciation. The samesternness and cheerlessness is to be seen in the poetry and painting of thepre-Raphaelites. The joy, freshness and sunniness of Raphael is not to befound in their work. Life is painful, puritanic and depressing to them. Oldage seems to be upon them, or the decadence of a people that has once beengreat. Human nature does not need that this strain be put upon it. Life isstronger when more assertive of itself. It has a right to assert itself indefiance of mere rules, and only when it does so is it true and great. Theascetic tone is one of the worst results of a scientific view of the worldas applied to literature; for it is thoroughly false both in fact and insentiment. The strong, hopeful, youthful look at life is the one whichliterature demands, and because it is the nearest the heart and spirit oflife itself. The dead nation produces a dead literature. The age madedoubtful by an excess of science produces a literature burdened withsadness and pain. Great and truthful as it may be, it lacks in power toconquer the world. It shows, not the power of Homer, but the power ofLucretius.

Her altruism has its side of truth, but not all of the truth is in it. Anysystem of thought which sees nothing beyond man is not likely to find thatwhich is most characteristic in man himself. He is to be fathomed, iffathomed at all, by some other line than that of his own experience. If heexplains the universe, the universe is also necessary to explain him. Manapart from the supersensuous is as little to be understood as man apartfrom humanity. He belongs to a Universal Order quite as much as he belongsto the human order. Man may be explained by evolution, but evolution is notto be explained by anything in the nature of man. It requires some largerfield of vision to take note of that elemental law. Not less true is itthat mind does not come obediently under this method of explanation, thatit demands account of how matter is transformed into thought. The law ofthought needs to be solved after mind is evolved.

There is occasion for surprise that a mind so acute and logical as GeorgeEliot's did not perceive that the evolution philosophy has failed to settleany of the greater problems suggested by Kant. The studies of Darwin andSpencer have certainly made it impossible longer to accept Locke's theoryof the origin of all knowledge in individual experience, but they have notin any degree explained the process of thought or the origin of ideas. Thegulf between the physiological processes in the brain and thought has notbeen bridged even by a rope walk. The total disparity of mind and matterresists all efforts to reduce them to one. The utmost which the evolutionphilosophy has so far done, is to attempt to prove that mind is a functionof matter or of the physiological process. This conclusion is as far aspossible from being that of the unity of mind and matter.

That man is very ignorant, and that this world ought to demand the greatershare of his attention and energies, are propositions every reasonableperson is ready to accept. Granted their truth, all that is necessarilytrue in agnosticism has been arrived at. It is a persistent refusal to seewhat lies behind outward facts which gives agnosticism all its practicaljustification. Art itself is a sufficient refutation of the assertion thatwe know nothing of what lies behind the apparent. That we know something ofcauses, every person who uses his own mind may be aware. At the same time,the rejection of the doctrine of rights argues obedience to a theory,rather than humble acceptance of the facts of history. That doctrine ofrights, so scorned by George Eliot, has wrought most of the great andwholesome social changes of modern times. Her theory of duties can show nohistoric results whatever.

To separate George Eliot's theories from her genius it seems impossibleto do, but this it is necessary to do in order to give both their properplace. All praise, her work demands on its side where genius is active.It is as a thinker, as a theorizer, she is to be criticised and to bedeclared wanting. Her work was crippled by her philosophy, or if notcrippled, then it was made less strong of limb and vigorous of body by thatsame philosophy. It is true of her as of Wordsworth, that she grew prosybecause she tried to be philosophical. It is true of her as it is not trueof him, that her work lacks in the breadth which a large view of the worldgives. His was no provincial conception of nature or of man. Hers was so ina most emphatic sense. The philosophy she adopted is not and cannot becomethe philosophy of more than a small number of persons. In the nature of thecase it is doomed to be the faith of a few students and cultured people.It can stir no common life, develop no historic movements, inaugurate noreforms, nor give to life a diviner meaning. Whether it be true ornot,--and this need not here be asked,--this social and moral limitation ofits power is enough to condemn it for the purposes of literature. In so faras George Eliot's work is artistic, poetic, moral and human, it is verygreat, and no word too strong can be said in its praise. It is not tooexcessive enthusiasm to call her, on the whole, the equal of any novelist.Her genius is commanding and elemental. She has originality, strength ofpurpose, and a profound insight into character. Yet her work is weakened byits attachment to a narrow theory of life. Her philosophy is transitory inits nature. It cannot hold its own, as developed by her, for any greatlength of time. It has the elements of its own destruction in itself. Thecurious may read her for her speculations; the many will read her for herrealism, her humanity and her genius. In truth, then, it would have beenbetter if her work had been inspired by great spiritual aims andconvictions.

XXI.

BIBLIOGRAPHY.

As an aid to those who may wish to carry further the preceding study ofGeorge Eliot, the following bibliography and lists of references have beencompiled. In their preparation constant use has been made of _Poole's Indexof Periodical Literature_, the bibliography contained in _The ManchesterLiterary Club Papers_ for 1881, and a list of references published in_The Literary World_ (Boston) for February 24, 1883. Numerous additionshave been made to these bibliographies, while the references have beenverified as far as possible. An occasional reference given in these listshas not been discoverable, as that of the Manchester Club to the _LondonQuarterly Review_ for January, 1874, for an article on "George Eliot andComtism," and Poole's reference to the same article in the _LondonQuarterly_, 47:446. This will be found in the number for January 1877,volume ninety-four.

1. WRITINGS.

1846. _The Life of Jesus_, by Strauss. Translated from the fourth German edition, 3 vols. Chapman Brothers, London.

1852-3. Assistant editor of the Westminster Review.

1852. The Westminster Review for January contained her notice of Carlyle's Life of John Sterling.

In the July number appeared her article on _The Lady Novelists_.

1854. _The Essence of Christianity_, by Feuerbach. Translated from the second German edition. John Chapman, London.

The Westminster Review for October published her _Woman in France: Madame de Sable_.

She wrote, it is supposed, occasionally for The Leader newspaper, of which journal Lewes was the literary editor. None of her contributions have been identified. [Footnote: There is a nearly complete set of The Leader in the Boston Athenaeum Library.]

In Blackwood's Magazine for January and February appeared _The Sad Fortunes of the Reverend Amos Barton_; in March, April, May and June, _Mr. Gilfil's Love Story_; from July to December, _Janet's Repentance_. In December these stories were published in two volumes under the title of _Scenes of Clerical Life_, by George Eliot. Edinburgh, Blackwood & Sons. Reprinted in Living Age from April to December, 1857.

1859. In February, _Adam Bede_ appeared in three volumes, Blackwoods.

Blackwood's Magazine for July contained _The Lifted Veil_.

1860. In April, _The Mill on the Floss_ was published in three volumes, Blackwoods.

1861. _Silas Marner_ in March, one volume, Blackwoods.

1863. _Romola_ appeared in the Cornhill Magazine from July, 1862, to July, 1863, and was illustrated. It was published in three volumes in July; Smith, Elder & Co., London.

1864. The Cornhill Magazine for July contained _Brother Jacob_, with illustrations.

1865. The Fortnightly Review for May 15 contained _The Influence of Rationalism_, and a review of Owen Jones's Grammar of Ornament.

1879. _The Impressions of Theophrastus Such_ was published in June by Blackwoods.

_The Legend of Jubal and Other Poems, Old and New_, was issued by Blackwoods, containing, in addition to those in the first edition, _A College Breakfast Party_, _Self and Life_, _Sweet Evenings Come and Go_, _Love_, _The Death of Moses_.

In Blackwood's cabinet edition of George Eliot's complete works, _The Lifted Veil_ and _Brother Jacob_ are reprinted with _Silas Marner_.

After the death of Lewes she edited his _Study of Psychology_ and his _Mind as a Function of the Organism_.

1881. The Pall Mall Gazette of January 6 contained her letter to Sara Hennell concerning the origin of _Adam Bede_.

Three letters to Professor David Kaufmann appeared in the Athenaeum of November 26, 1881.

The following articles also contain sayings of George Eliot's, or extracts from her letters: In the Contemporary Review, by "One who knew her," on the Moral Influence of George Eliot; C. Kegan Paul in Harper's Magazine; F.W.H. Myers in The Century; W.M.W. Call in the Westminster Review, and a nephew of William Blackwood in Blackwood's Magazine.

1882. In Harper's Magazine for March, Elizabeth Stuart Phelps published numerous extracts from George Eliot's letters under the title of _Last Words from George Eliot_.

1883. George Eliot, by Mathilde Blind,--London, W.H. Allen, and Boston, Roberts Brothers,--contains extracts from several letters.

The Essays of George Eliot, collected by Nathan Sheppard,--New York, Funk & Wagnalls,--contains _Carlyle's Life of Sterling_, _Woman in France_, _Evangelical Teaching_, _German Wit_, _Natural History of German Life_, _Silly Novels by Lady Novelists_, _Worldliness and other-Worldliness_, _The Influence of Rationalism_, _The Grammar of Ornament_, _Felix Holt's Address to Workingmen_.

The Complete Essays of George Eliot, Boston, Estes & Lauriat, 1883, in addition to the above, contains _The Lady Novelists, George Foster, the German Naturalist, Weimar and its Celebrities_.

The portrait of George Eliot appearing as the frontispiece to thisvolume is from that published in The Century for November, 1881.Accompanying it was the following account of it and of otherportraits:--

"We have the pleasure of presenting to our readers an authentic portrait ofGeorge Eliot, the only one by which it is likely that she will be known toposterity. We are indebted for this privilege, as we shall presentlyexplain, to the kindness and courtesy of her husband, Mr. J.W. Cross, whohas allowed us to be the first to usher this beautiful work of art to theworld. In doing so, we believe it will interest readers of The CenturyMagazine to learn, for the first time, the exact truth regarding theportraits of George Eliot, and we have therefore obtained from the threeartists to whom, at different times in her life, she sat, some particularsof those occasions.

"Miss Evans passed the winter of 1849-50 at Geneva, in the house of M.F.d'Albert Durade, the well-known Swiss water-color painter, who is also thetranslator of the authorized French version of her works. At that time shehad, however, written nothing original, and had attracted no generalinterest. While she stayed with M. Durade and his wife, the Swiss painteramused himself by making a small portrait of her in oils--a head andshoulders. This painting remains in the possession of M. Durade, who hasnot merely refused to sell it, but will not allow it to be photographed orreproduced in any form. He has, however, we understand, consented to make areplica of it for Mr. Cross. We have not seen this interesting work, but wehear that it is considered, by those who still remember the great writer asshe looked in her thirtieth year, to be remarkably faithful. M. Duraderecently exhibited this little picture for a few days at the Athenee inGeneva, but has refused to allow it to be brought to London.

"Ten years after this, in 1859, as the distinguished portrait-painter, Mr.Samuel Laurence, was returning from America, he happened to meet with 'AdamBede,' then just published. He was so delighted with the book that he wasdetermined to know the author, and it was revealed to him that to do so hehad but to renew his old acquaintance with Mr. George Henry Lewes, whom hehad met years before at Leigh Hunt's. He made George Eliot's acquaintance,and was charmed with her, and before long he asked leave to make a study ofher head. She assented without any affectation, and, in the early months of1861, Mr. Lewes commissioned the painter to make a drawing of her. She gavehim repeated sittings in his studio at 6 Wells Street, London, and Mr.Laurence looks back with great pleasure on the long conversations thatthose occasions gave him with his vivacious sitter. The drawing was takenfront face, with the hair uncovered, worn in the fashion then prevalent,and it was made in chalks. While it was proceeding, Mr. Laurence asked herif he might exhibit it, when finished, at the Royal Academy, and she atonce consented. But when the time for sending in drew near, the artistreceived a letter from Mr. Lewes absolutely withholding this consent, and acertain strain, of which this was the first symptom, began to embarrass therelations of the two gentlemen, until Mr. Lewes finally refused to take thedrawing at all. But before the summer was out, Mr. Langford, the reader ofMessrs. Blackwood of Edinburgh, who published George Eliot's works, calledon Mr. Laurence, and asked if he would consent to make a copy of thedrawing for the firm. The artist replied that he should be happy to sellthem the original, and accordingly it passed from his studio, in June,1861, into the back parlor of Mr. Blackwood's shop, where it now hangs.Like that of M. Durade, Mr. Laurence's portrait of George Eliot is not tobe in any way reproduced.

"The remaining portrait is that which we reproduce with this number. It isan elaborate chalk drawing, in black and white, with a slight touch ofcolor in the eyes, and was executed in the latter part of 1868 and theearly part of 1867, by Mr. Frederick W. Burton, at that time member of theSociety of Painters in Watercolors, and now director of the NationalGallery in London. George Eliot gave Mr. Burton many sittings in his studioat Kensington, and the picture was eventually exhibited in the RoyalAcademy, in 1867, as No. 735, 'The Author of "Adam Bede."' It passed intoMr. Lewes's possession, was retained at his death by George Eliot, and isnow the property of Mr. J.W. Cross. In the spring of this year, Mr. Crosscame to the conclusion that--as the shop windows were likely to becomefilled with spurious and hideous 'portraits' of George Eliot--it wasnecessary to overcome the dislike felt by the family of the great novelistto any publication of her features, to which in life she had been averse,and he thereupon determined to record in a monumental way what he felt tobe the best existing likeness. Mr. Cross took the drawing over to M. PaulRajon, who is acknowledged to be the prince of modern etchers, and inhis retirement at Auvers-sur-Oise, the great French artist has producedthe beautiful etching which we have been permitted to reproduce inengraving. For this permission, and for great courtesy and kindness undercircumstances the peculiar nature of which it is not necessary here tospecify, we have to tender our most sincere thanks to Mr. J.W. Cross and toMr. Burton.

"These are regarded by her friends to be the only important portraits ofGeorge Eliot which exist, but Mr. Cross possesses a very interesting blacksilhouette, cut with scissors, when she was sixteen. In this profile, thecharacteristics of the mature face are seen in the course of development.There is also a photograph, the only one ever taken, dating from about1850, the eyes of which are said to be exceedingly fine. As an impressionof later life, there should be mentioned a profile drawn in pencil by Mrs.Alma Tadema, in March, 1877. Of all the portraits here alluded to, the onewe engrave is the only one at present destined for publication. It may beadded that there exist one or two other profile sketches, which, however,are not approved by the friends of George Eliot."

"Lady Novelists"Law_Leader_ newspaper_Legend of Jubal_Letters, extracts fromLewes, George Henry born school days early studies in Germany _History of Philosophy_ _Spanish Drama_ _Ranthorpe_ writes for Reviews _Leader_ _Philosophy of the Sciences_ _Life of Goethe_, physiological studies _Fortnightly Review_ _Problems of Life and Mind_ characteristics deathLewes, influence on George EliotLewes, Marian Evans born parents early reading school in Nuneaton school In Coventry studying at home moves to Foleshill studies continued early religious views early scepticism troubles with her family finds friends the Brays the Hennells drawn towards positivism father dies goes to continent translates Strauss Feuerbach assistant editor of _Westminster Review_ _Review_ contributor marriage studies in Germany writes _Clerical Scenes_ adopts name of "George Eliot" again visits Germany _Adam Bede_ controversy about _Adam Bede_ novel-writing poems written house habits of study description of person receptions summers in country death of Lewes marriage to John Walter Cross death literary traits"Lifted Veil"Liggins, JosephLippincott, Mrs., quotedLiterary MethodsLiterature definedLockeLoveLucretius

Past, thePaul, Kegan, quotedPessimismPhilosophy, George Eliot'sPhilosophy, Lewes's _History of__Philosophy of the Sciences__Physiology of Common Life_PlotsPoetryPositivismPrayerPriory, The_Problems of Life and Mind_Psychology